According to Slashfilm.com: "So far the response has been very positive, a bunch of four out of five star reviews."[1]Dynablaster (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would not cite this for critical reception of the film because it is an early perspective. We would do better with a retrospective perspective, particularly after the film is released to the public. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If this page is not for discussion, why has the above comment not been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.103.230 (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

the title of the movie is mocking capitalism but the trailer mocks bailouts, which arent capitalism (free market) but rather government intervention. does michael moore understand this? is it explained in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mild Sauce (talk • contribs) 22:03, September 20, 2009

No, he doesn't understand it. The man is an economic illiterate.

It's just a matter of who asked for the money, lobbied for it and used it for their own betterment. Gingermint (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The treatment of the bailouts in the film involves the way in which the capitalist banks made the government work for them, rather than for the people.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately corportism is commonly called capitalism. The same way fasicm is called communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with characterizing any Michael Moore film, including this one, as a documentary. Like his other films, this seeks to convey a specific, if perhaps not clearly delineated, political viewpoint. Moreover, he is willing to distort his perception of reality, or affect it (by entering into the scene and trying to manipulate it) rather than merely observing, documenting, and commenting on his view of reality. Should it not be characterized as propaganda? Jim Simmons (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries are not, and have never been, about simply "documenting". Any documentary, arty, political, or generally observing, tells a story. It has a thesis that it tries to prove or support. If not, it's not a documentary but a reportage. And it doesn't have to be "true" or "correct" to be a documentary. (Yes, I'm sure there are many definitions who won't agree with med, but I'm almost certain that this is how most people who actually work with film would define a documentary. I'd say so after more than ten years in the professional area of film production.) 80.217.51.146 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The general label for this film is documentary film. When the film is released, we can include commentary from various sides (applying due weight in the process) and let the readers pass their own judgments on the film. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to Erik; I agree with that idea, and I apologize if my former statements were unproductive to the discussion at hand (This is the IP poster in this thread, I forgot my password after a long while of inactivity). The purpose of the page should be to inform, not form opinions of the film as that would probably just turn the reader off from the article and the media in question. I'll certainly do my part and present sources that seem un-motivated to Moore himself and more on the topic of the film after it's been released. Girasoleil (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would refer all to the relevant section in our article about the genre- Documentary film#Defining documentary, to whit: "a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should edit that page then, because it is obviously wrong. The very differences between a documtary and a propaganda is that a documentary covers all important point of views. It do NOT used film tricks etc. That is propaganda. And Michael Moore uses propaganda in this film. Perhaps political manifest would be more fitting if propaganda sounds too harsh? - B 213.150.55.94 (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Documentaries aren't propaganda. They are too long. Propaganda is just advertisement, public relations. The word got a negative connotation when it got linked to the Nazis. Furthermore he is saying substantive things, which never happens in propaganda. Objectivity isn't required in a documentary, it just has to be based in fact. Very few documentaries are objective because its difficult for filmmakers to obtain credible opposing viewpoints for interviews. As far as I know, there are no outright falsifications, or decontextualization or anything like that. A better term would be Editorial Documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

^^Your definition of a "documentary as not propaganda due to length" is much too shortsighted. The Triumph Of The Will was a propaganda piece for the Nazi Party, and was hardly the length (at 114 minutes) of a mere advertisment.

An editor changed the "Accessed" dates to ISO formatting where this is not necessary, and I reverted this overhaul per MOS:DATE. With the articles' dates written one way, there is no reason to change the access dates to another format. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

May someone add this AP fact checking of the film into the article?[2]Richard (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice nugget! I don't know if I'll have time to put it in, but thanks for sharing. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I included some material, mainly the three aspects of the film outlined in the article. There is some commentary before and after that could be incorporated, too. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone merged the "Analysis" section into the "Critical reception" section, but the sections should remain separate. The "Critical reception" section is a place for sampling film critics' reviews of the quality of the documentary film. The AP article specifically analyzes elements of the documentary, so it is definitely not a review or by a film critic, but rather a business writer. There will undoubtedly be more such analytical coverage that has less to do with the film's "quality" than the accuracy of its details. Others' thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is it written that a Critical reception section must only include the opinion of film critics? These things vary from page to page, but I can honestly say that I have never seen a section named Analysis. Surely it is better to follow the example set by other films of this nature? (e.g. Sicko) Dynablaster (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Erik. "Critical reception" should focus on personal opinions regarding the filmmaking aspects of the subject. The current "Analysis" section deals with real facts that need to be discussed separately from critical observations on filmmaking. The editor that disagrees with Erik reverted again and added the factual analysis back to the reception section claiming that "there is no precedent for a section named "Analysis" anywhere on Wikipedia". While I welcome discussion on possibly changing the section header from "Analysis" to something considered more suitable, I think there's plenty of precedent for keeping these two sections separate. See, for example, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. A great deal of factual analysis is kept strictly separate from the critical reception. Filmmaking analysis and factual analysis may sound similar but they really are two completely separate issues and should be addressed separately. Big Bird(talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (reply to Dynablaster) Perhaps "Analysis" is a little vague. I think, though, that a distinction should be made between film critics and "fact check" writers. We will have more reviews like those from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, so I foresee the need for subsectioning. We could do a "Reception" section with a "Critics" subsection and another subsection for those who are not quite film critics? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "Topical accuracy"? This would allow us to include more articles like the one from the AP. In the meantime, we should look into adding more reviews to the "Critical reception" section. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no precedent for such a section name. Please follow Wikipedia's Film template, or stick as closely to that as you can. Dynablaster (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is some precedent with films with scientific and historical subject matter; see WP:FILMHIST/WP:FILMSCI. This is neither, though the same best practices can apply, that there should not be armchair analysis, but analysis from reliable secondary sources. Does this not count? I'm not sure where you get the idea that there must be precedent for such section headings... we should write them as it finds the context accordingly, precedent or not. This is my suggestion. Do you have any alternatives that could work, too? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my alternative is to follow the Project Films Template, which clearly allows for "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film" to be cited in a Reception section (WP:MOSFILM) Since we both do agree that the same best practices apply, why should we do things differently? Dynablaster (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We ought to subsection it accordingly because the film critics' write-ups are not in the same vein as the business writer's. Let's say we house everything under "Reception"; we will have the professional film critics and we will have people have different calibers. How do we make the distinction between them in the section headings? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore's previous film Sicko was fact checked by CNN. There were many arguments at the time, but editors eventually settled their differences. How about a Business media sub header? I'm sure there will be others in this journalistic field who will have something to say about the film. Dynablaster (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, most editors did not settle their differences. Most editors left the article. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you beleive Sicko is unbalanced in some way, and do you have a suggeston that might better work here? Dynablaster (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My concerns have already been expressed on Talk:Sicko (archived or not). I'm in agreement with Erik and others here. Dynablaster, I don't mean to embarrass you, but I hope you are aware that Erik is the primary contributor to the MOS you keep asking him to follow. I realize that nobody was going to tell you, but I thought it was unfair to let you continue like this. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Erik's initial understanding of the issue appeared to be incorrect (The Critical reception section is a place for sampling film critics' reviews of the quality of the documentary film) [3] whereas I quoted the style guide directly ([MOS] clearly allows for "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film" to be cited in a Reception section) [4] Erik gracefully accepted this point (It works for me) [5] and asked what we might name the various subsections. I think Topical accuracy is asking for trouble and would prefer to see something similar to Sicko, which you had plenty to say on. Dynablaster (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it does not seem that this film got very much attention, so I doubt we will deal with a situation like Sicko. (I will be de-listing this from my watchlist as a result.) Secondly, we have much flexibility with sections and their headings. The way the details of the AP article are presented now, it does not feel like reception information anymore than themes written up by a scholar about the film. Such content addresses the film, but I think "reception" generally means the quality of the film, meaning is it good or bad. I am not too concerned about the structure, but my proposed change would be to have the "Reviews" subsection be a stand-alone "Critical reception" section and "Topical accuracy" be its own section. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So under "Reception", we could have "Critics" and "Business media"? It works for me, though I am wondering, what if there are new commentators that are not film critics nor business media? What about academics? Would it work to have subsections for them as we go along? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim that we need precedent before naming a section is patently ludicrous and should be disregarded. The only guideline mandate for section headers may be found here: WP:MOSHEAD, nowhere is any need for precedent mentioned. L0b0t (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

L0b0t, do you like "Topical accuracy" or is there another heading that could be used? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, "Analysis" seems slightly more neutral (if that makes sense) than "Topical Accuracy" but both are acceptable to me. L0b0t (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In what is currently the second item in this section, it reads "Moore said that the termination of the policies was covered in the presentation of facts and quotes in the closing credits." which seems an odd way of stating that. The assertion is either correct or it isn't, and Moore's opinion of what constitutes reality is irrelevant. The way it is currently written has the effect of turning a statement of fact (which, as a rebuttal, should be attributed in some way to Moore) into a he said-she said argument and introducing the possibility of poisoning the well (Oh, well, Michael Moore says it's in there, but you can't trust him). I'm going to try one more change, and see how that's received. superlusertc 2009 October 07, 14:22 (UTC)

When the film is released to the public, I recommend a "Synopsis" section to replace the "Content" section that can outline the major aspects of the documentary film to the point where we can link to the keywords involved. Linked keywords of topics that are not so common sense will benefit readers. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see some helpful individual has linked plutonomy to plutocracy. Unfortunately, that seems to me to be wrong. Plutocracy is rule by wealth, and can be seen by looking to Athens after the Lamian War.

Plutonomy would seem to be a portmanteau of pluto and economy, or a market of wealth (literally the study of wealth), which is not the same as rule by wealth. Indeed, the document cited by Moore addresses plutonomies untethered to plutocracies, going as far as saying "entrepreneur/plutocrats... are logically diversifying into the asset markets of the developed plutonomies," which would make no sense if the words were synonyms. Plutocrats logically diversifying into pluotcracies would be a self-evident and silly point to make.

If we ever need an article on the subject, perhaps the word would be better rendered plutopoly (sale by wealth), after monopoly and oligopoly. superlusertc 2009 October 07, 06:35 (UTC)

Actually Superluser I like your wording! I was sort of puzzled by Moores use of the Plutonomy phrase- I think he made an esthetic connection with "Economy" & "Plutocracy" . Plutocracy is often used by historians to describe the totally unregulated free-market 'Robber-Baron' period of American history in the last 2 decades of the 19th century. But Plutopoly as a descriptive of an economic structure scans better & seems self definitive. Wish Moore had used that! 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)MBD71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Plutonomy is not Moore's word, it is Citigroup's (or rather, the word of the authors, who are in the employ of Citigroup). I doubt we need an entry on the topic now, but in my opinion plutocracy is clearly not a synonym to plutonomy. If an article becomes necessary, we may wind up having to call it plutonomy if that's the most common name. superlusertc 2009 October 08, 05:31 (UTC)

Since the "reviews" section contained a positive response from a Catholic group, it occurred to me that the NPOV issue in the "topical accuracy" section could be resolved by simply removing all the subsection headers and including all reactions in one section. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a fully formed opinion about the title of the factual accuracy section but we should most definitely not mix the critical reviews of the film together with review or disagreement of facts presented. This has been discussed before, those two are very distinct and different and they need to be treated as such. Big Bird(talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

But obviously you don't have a consensus, because there is a big fat NPOV tag that somebody placed under the Topical Accuracy subsection. I changed that from "Objections concerning topical accuracy" but I don't think that is sufficient to resolve the matter.

By combining into one section, you alleviate the problem that comes from highlighting an unbalanced section, and you do that without removing a word of text. So I don't really see the problem. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus to which I'm referring is that the reviews from film critics and analysis of factual accuracy should be kept separate. Any NPOV issues have nothing to do with that, rather editors challenge that in the section regarding criticism of information presented by the filmmaker there is not enough weight given to the facts that were correct as opposed to what was incorrect. The critical reviews are a completely separate matter that should not be used to artificially balance out any neutrality issues in other sections. In other words, we can't take a section that gives positive feedback on the production aspects of the film and combine it with a section that gives negative feedback on factual accuracy and say that the section is now balanced because it has positive and negative feedback in the same section. Big Bird(talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then in that case you need to resolve the NPOV issue in the subsection. One thing you might do in the interim is to place the "Catholic" comment in that subsection. That's really not a theatrical review.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Catholic review. There is no point in having a review from a religious expert about a topic that has nothing to do with religion. We should have "classic" reviews from film critics and commentary from experts related to the documentary's subject matter. The "NPOV" tag was fully unwarranted. In addition, editor MaxmilianT removed some AP statements under the false claim of them being unsourced, and I have warned him accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone attempted to restore the review, but like I said, a religious expert's opinion has no bearing on a film that is not directly about religion. For this topic, the reliable sources should be authorities on the subject matter, so this means either well-established film critics or people who are well-versed in the film's key topics. Clearly, religion is not a key topic of the film, and thus the review does not belong. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a major part of the film, and should be kept, even if you disagree with it. Deserted Cities (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. I disagree with removing that text. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted. I could understand removing the religious expert if the religious aspect of the movie wasn't mentioned, but it was. I just see no basis for the removal. I also think it's necessary for fairness and balance in that section. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised the Countrywide financial political loan scandal was not mentioned in the synopsis. This for me was one of the most shocking parts in the film, where he rattles off the list of political big shots who received sweetheart deals from Countrywide, including Rep. Dodd (D-CT). So I added a sentence about this with internal links to the relevant WP articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.210.192 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I can find, the DVD release date seems to be March 9, 2010. Can somebody confirm this and source this, and add it to the page? As far as I can tell, it's not mentioned on the page. --V2Blast (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Any information on why it wasn't nominated for best documentary? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it is NOT a documentary as it contains a fat movie maker talking about a subject he has no clue about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sabaton10, do you have any evidence to back up your assertions, or are you simply having a temper tantrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.112.142 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The "theatrical run" section states that "The final domestic total was $14,115,489 [1] making it the 9th highest grossing documentary in history [11].". This sounds very positive, however according to http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=michaelmoore09.htm the film's budget was $20m. So domestically the film lost abou $6m. If international sales are factored in, the film made approximately $17.5m, still $2.5m still about 12% short of the budget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.167.10 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the fact that the film apparently did not make back its production costs should be at least mentioned--Nyctc7 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Without a source that plainly states it did not recoup its production budget, I simply added the $20m production budget number from box office mojo in the info box. I guess interpolating that the film lost money is not allowed in the body of the article without a source that specifically says so, as that would constitute "original research".--Nyctc7 (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that a film released in 2009 cannot document events extending into 2010, although I know the crisis does cover that time period and I can understand why it's written as it is. I suggest simply changing the phrasing "financial crisis of 2007–2010" to "Late-2000s financial crisis" (which the former phrase redirects to, anyway). Thoughts? -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the synopsis section deleted arbitrarily by User:Bobrayner. Consensus should be reached on the talk page before making such a move on a long-standing section (2009).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A synopsis would be OK. A giant manifesto which repeats a rant in wikipedia's voice is not OK. Do you understand the difference between the two? bobrayner (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)